Exercise doesn't help you lose weight...say what?
Replies
-
Calliope610 wrote: »comeonnow142857 wrote: »There's typically a lot more room to adjust CI, vs adjusting CO (especially if you're not at a spectacular fitness & endurance level).
I strongly disagree. It is so much easier for me to get off my couch and go for walk or ride and earn 300 - 600 calories than to restrict myself to 1200-1400 calories on a long term basis.
If you have the time to go for up to 2 hour walks daily instead of creating a deficit by just not eating something.2 -
Got into a discussion with some friends the other day regarding diet and exercise and losing weight, etc. One of my friends said that exercise does not help you lose weight, it's 100% diet. I disagreed and said that whether you take in less calories (diet) or burn more calories (exercise), if you're in a deficit you'll lose weight, therefore exercise does in fact help you lose weight. She disagreed with me still.
Your thoughts?
Well ... actually, you are correct ... exercise helps us use up more calories so we end up in a larger deficit than if we had not done it. But actually, any additional/extra activity or physical movement will help to burn up some extra calories.
That said ... your friend is correct also ... If you sat in a chair or laid on a bed 24 hours a day, and your calorie intake were low enough, you would lose weight. However, you would also lose muscle mass and less muscle means a slower metabolism so you would have to progressively consume less calories just to stay even. That's why us senior citizens get to eat less when we are 70 than when we were 40 ... our metabolism has slowed down.
And ... yo-yo dieting also causes our metabolism to slow down because every time we lose weight we lose some muscle and some fat, not just fat ... and it takes really HARD physical strength activity to help us hold on to muscle. However, when we gain weight, we gain more fat than we do muscle ... and when it goes on and on like that, we end up being a big soft blob of loose skin and fat instead of tight skin and big strong muscles.
My goal is to avoid the bolded from happening. Metabolism doesn't slow much solely because of age. It's because of becoming progressively more sedentary.0 -
So, we are mostly all saying the same thing.
There are 14 sides to every coin! LOL!
There are two sides here (getting very simplistic): CI (Calories In) and CO (Calories Out).
If CI = CO then you maintain (read: do not gain weight, but do not lose weight).
If CI > CO then you gain weight (whatever that might mean)
If CI < CO then you lose weight (whatever that might mean).
The challenge here is that it is NOT really that simple.
What is your TDEE? And, how do we know what our TDEE is? It is BMR + PA + NEAT + TEF. Sure, we all know that. But what is that number? And, is it the same for me as it is for you? Heck no.
Anyway, just thinking out loud....1 -
This content has been removed.
-
stevencloser wrote: »Calliope610 wrote: »comeonnow142857 wrote: »There's typically a lot more room to adjust CI, vs adjusting CO (especially if you're not at a spectacular fitness & endurance level).
I strongly disagree. It is so much easier for me to get off my couch and go for walk or ride and earn 300 - 600 calories than to restrict myself to 1200-1400 calories on a long term basis.
If you have the time to go for up to 2 hour walks daily instead of creating a deficit by just not eating something.
I MAKE the time for about 60-75 minutes of activity I enjoy. For me, that is time very well spent.3 -
CWShultz27105 wrote: »So, we are mostly all saying the same thing.
There are 14 sides to every coin! LOL!
There are two sides here (getting very simplistic): CI (Calories In) and CO (Calories Out).
If CI = CO then you maintain (read: do not gain weight, but do not lose weight).
If CI > CO then you gain weight (whatever that might mean)
If CI < CO then you lose weight (whatever that might mean).
The challenge here is that it is NOT really that simple.
What is your TDEE? And, how do we know what our TDEE is? It is BMR + PA + NEAT + TEF. Sure, we all know that. But what is that number? And, is it the same for me as it is for you? Heck no.
Anyway, just thinking out loud....
It's simple, it's just humans (in general) don't like effort. The most accurate way is to eat the same calories every day, track it every day, average it out at the end of the week and compare with the previous 3 weeks. Did you gain weight or lose weight??? If you gained or stayed the same, adjust the calories, repeat and see after 3 weeks what result you get. It takes effort, but not everyone is willing to do it. If it would be easy, nobody would be obese. Unfortunately, everyone wants to lose weight, but find all kinds of excuse not to put the effort into it or the most common answer I get "It's my genetics" (only 1% of the population can actually say it's because of their genetic or health issue). No, the reason most people fail is they lack discipline, most people (not everyone of course) are not capable of telling themselves "No", they like to do what they do because it feels good even though they know it hurts them too in the long run.
Ture. If I had to do all that just to control my weight I'm not sure I would.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
@filbo132 - you said it, man! I can go on and on about people want the results but don't want to put forth the effort. Preach, man! Preach! Unfortunately, what you say is so very true. Oh, so as not to offend anyone...."generally speaking".
I see it all the time....as I have mentioned a few times.....I was working with some guys my age and they were having issues with "time" so I asked them "Let's map out what you do all day" and it is funny how ESPN was higher on their priority list than training. Not judging....truly not. Just don't get it. But, that is my problem.6 -
If you're only going to do one or the other, dieting would be more effective in my opinion. You should be doing both though! In my own personal experience, as someone who moves in some capacity every single day, I don't drop weight unless I clean up my diet. Which makes me sad. :-)
1 -
Calliope610 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Calliope610 wrote: »comeonnow142857 wrote: »There's typically a lot more room to adjust CI, vs adjusting CO (especially if you're not at a spectacular fitness & endurance level).
I strongly disagree. It is so much easier for me to get off my couch and go for walk or ride and earn 300 - 600 calories than to restrict myself to 1200-1400 calories on a long term basis.
If you have the time to go for up to 2 hour walks daily instead of creating a deficit by just not eating something.
I MAKE the time for about 60-75 minutes of activity I enjoy. For me, that is time very well spent.
That's true that you make the time.
You know what? So do I.
I still have to keep my calories on point.
You can't have one without the other.
3 -
For me fitness makes a huge difference when losing weight. Especially as I have gotten older. Sure, I can lose on diet alone but it's much much harder.4
-
karintalley wrote: »For me fitness makes a huge difference when losing weight. Especially as I have gotten older. Sure, I can lose on diet alone but it's much much harder.
Exactly. The question wasn't is exercise necessary. The question was does it help. I can't imagine anyone that has tried losing weight without exercise and with would argue that it doesn't help.3 -
karintalley wrote: »For me fitness makes a huge difference when losing weight. Especially as I have gotten older. Sure, I can lose on diet alone but it's much much harder.
I agree that it's much easier to create an appropriate deficit over any length of time if you are exercising. For me, exercise creates a sense of well being that helps keep me on track.
Otoh, I read a study where certain people did better by not introducing exercise till later, so perhaps there are qualifiers.
2 -
Calliope610 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Calliope610 wrote: »comeonnow142857 wrote: »There's typically a lot more room to adjust CI, vs adjusting CO (especially if you're not at a spectacular fitness & endurance level).
I strongly disagree. It is so much easier for me to get off my couch and go for walk or ride and earn 300 - 600 calories than to restrict myself to 1200-1400 calories on a long term basis.
If you have the time to go for up to 2 hour walks daily instead of creating a deficit by just not eating something.
I MAKE the time for about 60-75 minutes of activity I enjoy. For me, that is time very well spent.
Not everyone is like you, there are people (myself included) who hate cardio so much that I am willing to sacrifice some food just to achieve my goal. As I have said in the previous posts, there is only path to losing weight and that's by a caloric deficit. How you do it is up to personal preference.
Please indicate where I claimed this was true of everyone. I expressly indicated this applied ONLY TO ME.
2 -
Exercising keeps me out of the RED every single day. Without it i would seriously struggle to stay in a deficit! I would rather exercise more than eat less.5
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
My goal is to avoid the bolded from happening. Metabolism doesn't slow much solely because of age. It's because of becoming progressively more sedentary.
About 150 calories a day, for me, between age 42 and 72. But yes, we do also slow down ... things hurt, we're more tired. I really applaud all those people past retirement age who have been able to keep themselves very active and high school age slender/strong ... they are folks to look up to and try to emulate.1 -
All I know is that once I started cleaning office buildings for 3-4 hours at night five days a week and did not change my eating habits, I lost some serious weight. I was a serious mountain dew drinker then. It took 11 months,*cough* mnt dew, but I lost. So I am proof that exercise is part of it. I sit at a desk 8 hours a day. I gained the weight back slowly after I quit the cleaning job.3
-
wrknonmedaily wrote: »All I know is that once I started cleaning office buildings for 3-4 hours at night five days a week and did not change my eating habits, I lost some serious weight. I was a serious mountain dew drinker then. It took 11 months,*cough* mnt dew, but I lost. So I am proof that exercise is part of it. I sit at a desk 8 hours a day. I gained the weight back slowly after I quit the cleaning job.
My hubby has a similar story. He worked away at a job where he had to walk back and forth along a looong jetty everyday, when he got back 3mths later people asked him if he was sick or on drugs as he had lost a lot of weight. He regained the weight when he went back to usual job.1 -
For me, it's diet 75% because I know if I watch what I eat and don't snack, I lose weight without exercise. I lost 20 lbs that way. Last year, I exercised for an hour a day. I only lost 10 lbs this way in 6 long months. The bonus with the activity was that my cholestrol/trigylcerides went down many points. That's GREAT!
Exercise is key for a healthy life. My back dr said that they did a study of those who walked vs. those who just watched their calories. Those who watched their calories lost much more weight than those who walked daily. He said not to discount exercise as it's important for so many other things including heart health and more activity meant less overall body pain for many. I believe it. If I don't move, I feel more achy and inflamed. In the end, BOTH are very important and worth investing time in. I will continue to do both!3 -
Read “The First Twenty Minutes.” Lots of the most recent science on diet and exercise. More regular test subjects rather than elite male athlete test subjects.
I found it fascinating that a study on normal people of both genders showed that very few people lose weight running. I knew that!2 -
This applies more to people who don't count calories and instead attempt intuitive eating. Exercise makes us hungrier the same way sweating makes us thirsty. If you're not keeping track you will most likely replace the extra burned calories by eating more and even if you're counting, it can be tougher to resist more food.4
-
Diet matters! Let say for me I'm marked at 1,200 calories I'm sedentary other than taking care of my little ones and cleaning and cooking! If I eat 3,000 calories and burn 500 Im not going to lose weight. I thought exercise was ALWAYS the answer I would eat very poorly and exercise for hours and wonder why I wasn't losing weight. Ever heard the saying "abs aren't made in the gym, they're made in the kitchen?" That's true. But I also believe if I was able to go to the gym and strength train I'd be much happier with my results. I don't have time to, so I have to put that on hold. I've lost 31 pounds and I'm not satisfied with my body.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Personally, I cannot lose much weight on diet alone. As a shorter than average woman with a lower than average base metabolism for my size, I'd have to eat so few calories to reach my healthy target weight I'd be malnourished. You can only cut so many calories from your diet; the standard recommendation is to not go below 1200, but that would be a negligible calorie deficit for someone like me if I were sedentary. It's much safer and more sustainable for me to run 7-8 miles/day and eat 1200 to lose about 1.5 lbs./week than to eat 700/day to lose at the same rate. My most successful ratio is about 2/3 exercise and 1/3 calorie reduction.
Of course if the diet that got you overweight is 3000 or more calories a day, the reverse is probably true: you'll more easily cut 750-1000 cals/day from your diet than burn that many with exercise.
So the diet/exercise balance that works best depends on your own body and previous diet; you just need to be careful not to eat back your exercise calories, which can be hard because you do get hungrier AND because people (and treadmills) tend to overestimate what they burn AND because the more you lose, the less you'll burn.4 -
Personally, I cannot lose much weight on diet alone. As a shorter than average woman with a lower than average base metabolism for my size, I'd have to eat so few calories to reach my healthy target weight I'd be malnourished. You can only cut so many calories from your diet; the standard recommendation is to not go below 1200, but that would be a negligible calorie deficit for someone like me if I were sedentary. It's much safer and more sustainable for me to run 7-8 miles/day and eat 1200 to lose about 1.5 lbs./week than to eat 700/day to lose at the same rate. My most successful ratio is about 2/3 exercise and 1/3 calorie reduction.
Of course if the diet that got you overweight is 3000 or more calories a day, the reverse is probably true: you'll more easily cut 750-1000 cals/day from your diet than burn that many with exercise.
So the diet/exercise balance that works best depends on your own body and previous diet; you just need to be careful not to eat back your exercise calories, which can be hard because you do get hungrier AND because people (and treadmills) tend to overestimate what they burn AND because the more you lose, the less you'll burn.
QFT0 -
I find this all very funny..people accuse me of being all semantic and *kitten*..but come one folks.
we all know to lose weight you need a calorie deficit...how you get that deficit can be a variety of ways.
eat less food, exercise more or a combination of both.
But when it comes down to it....EXERCISE IS NOT A REQUIREMENT TO LOSE WEIGHT.
There are people everyday who lose weight who can't exercise...yah can't exercise. Just normal movement can and does cause issues for some folks so they lose weight by eating less.
So exercise can create a deficit but in the long term it really is not the way weight is lost...as pointed out many times you can exercise all you want but if you aren't burning more than waht you are consuming...0 -
Read “The First Twenty Minutes.” Lots of the most recent science on diet and exercise. More regular test subjects rather than elite male athlete test subjects.
I found it fascinating that a study on normal people of both genders showed that very few people lose weight running. I knew that!
My bookshelf needed something new. This looks very interesting (though from the reviews it sounds like I'm already in agreement with her...)0 -
It's simple, to loose weight calories in must be less than calories out. You can adjust either side of the calories equation to create a deficit. Admittedly, it can be easier to create a deficit by eating less, but it can still be created by exersizing more to burn the calories, for me the optimum is both, with the added benefit of exercise bring the increased fitness.1
-
I find this all very funny..people accuse me of being all semantic and *kitten*..but come one folks.
we all know to lose weight you need a calorie deficit...how you get that deficit can be a variety of ways.
eat less food, exercise more or a combination of both.
But when it comes down to it....EXERCISE IS NOT A REQUIREMENT TO LOSE WEIGHT.
There are people everyday who lose weight who can't exercise...yah can't exercise. Just normal movement can and does cause issues for some folks so they lose weight by eating less.
So exercise can create a deficit but in the long term it really is not the way weight is lost...as pointed out many times you can exercise all you want but if you aren't burning more than waht you are consuming...
All true. But the question wasn't whether exercise is a requirement.2 -
A couple of years ago I lost 25 lbs while living a sedentary lifestyle. My success was that I counted calories on my fitness pal.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions